Support NeoGAF

[jett]

I don't get where this idea that Bloodstained would benefit so much from being on "high end" hardware other than graphical bells and whistles comes. It's a Castlevania game, it'll have corridors and rooms, enemies, weapons and magic. It won't do anything mind-blowing that can't be done on less powerful hardware other than better graphics, it won't have amazing AI routines, sprawling open worlds or thousands of enemies and that has nothing to do with the fact that there's a Vita and Wii U version.
Some versions will look prettier, others will look worse and that's about it, considering there's a separate team to port it.

Honestly, it will probably end up being ugly as all fuck anyway if MN9 is any indication.

 

[rjc571]

Honestly, it will probably end up being ugly as all fuck anyway if MN9 is any indication.

Exactly, and this is why I'm not supporting the kickstarter. I'm not going to pledge money to a game without even knowing what it's going to look like!

 

[dark10x]

But GAF told me that it is not possible..... :/

Of course it's possible...but that doesn't make it a good choice.

Right off that bat, to me, that means those versions won't run at 60fps and will probably sacrifice a lot of visual quality.

Good luck to them.

Here's an idea; why don't we wait until further in development before assuming that A: the PS4/XBONE/PC versions were going to be some sort of graphical showcase in the first place and B: that the Wii U version is just going to suck because it's on Wii U. It's too fucking early to tell, especially when all we have to go off of are a couple of conceptual screenshots.

I'm still not convinced that they'll be able to use UE4 effectively on Wii U (let alone Vita). Same deal with 360 or PS3.

UE4 could work on those platforms given that there is a mobile path. That's not an issue. It all depends on how the main version of the game is designed. It doesn't need to be a visual powerhouse to become a difficult port on lesser systems.

At best, I could see something like the Strider situation where it was 1080p60 on PS4 and XO but 720p30 (with slowdown and tearing) on 360 and PS3. That's if we're lucky. I don't even WANT to imagine what a Vita version would look like. May as well be a different game altogether.

 

[protomouse]

Do you know how infantile this sounds?

To be fair, and as much as I respect the guy, Durante's post wasn't any better. But anyway, think of it like this: the Vita and Wii U versions add a decent amount of money to the project. That money will help not only cover the porting but hopefully improve the base game even further. It's not all gray skies.

 

[Journey]

I know stuff about UE4 on WiiU has been said before so I understand why this is surprising.

But it seems a lot of people think Unreal Engine 4 is some sort of graphical benchmark or something.
It's an engine and as most good third party engines it's a very flexible one.

THIS is an Unreal Engine 4 game:

Exactly!

An engine is just a set of tools. You have the ability to crank up the visuals to 11, but that doesn't mean you're forced to.

 

[Tain]

To be fair, and as much as I respect the guy, Durante's post wasn't any better. But anyway, think of it like this: the Vita and Wii U versions add a decent amount of money to the project. That money will help not only cover the porting but hopefully improve the base game even further. It's not all gray skies.

I actually didn't see Durante's original post, lol. It's intense, and would have been bad if left unexplained, but he did elaborate enough in other posts. I think it's ridiculous to take a "well you clearly think it sucks so Get Out" position given that.

 

[FZZ]

A journey 3 years in the making.

Kreygasm

 

[Maggots]

Well, the entire engine is open-source, so you can compile the engine for any platform, and make any changes to enable any platform that you want.

In general, I think they'll probably take what's already been done for the mobile platforms, and port that over to Vita and Wii U, as it seems like the straightest shot. I imagine they'll just have to turn some post-processing effects down or lower the resolution, which is all very easy to do in UE4. In fact, there's even drop-downs in the editor for "mobile quality" or "console/desktop quality".

As far as I know, the only reason Epic hasn't done the Wii U and Vita ports is simply a numbers issue: those two platforms have so few users that it wasn't financially in their best interests to port it. But it's an open-source engine... eventually, someone was going to do it.

edit:
Also, isn't this a 2D game? Yeah, I wouldn't really worry about the Wii U or Vita then.

edit 2:
My mistake: it's 2.5D. I still don't really see a problem.

I agree completely... I'd like to see what they can accomplish on wii U

 

[Zombegoast]

Well damn, I'm looking to it. Also game performance has more to do with the talents of the programmer and artist. obviously the Ps3 and 360 won't support it because their hardware are almost 10 years old.

 

[MCN]

I'm still not convinced that they'll be able to use UE4 effectively on Wii U (let alone Vita). Same deal with 360 or PS3.

I'm pretty certain that game developers know more about game development than you do, and will have made the choice of engine based upon their own knowledge and experience. Unlike you, they are actual developers, not armchair devs.

 

[atr0cious]

Has nothing to do with fear mongering. This is straight off the Unreal Engine's FAQ subsection of the website:



I don't see Wii U in that list, so I don't know what Armature has planned.

Wii U can do HTML5 games.

Also, this is a 2.5d game, not some graphical powerhouse. At most, they might sacrifice shadows, but based on Mighty 9, I'm not too worried about that.

 

[dark10x]

I'm pretty certain that game developers know more about game development than you do, and will have made the choice of engine based upon their own knowledge and experience. Unlike you, they are actual developers, not armchair devs.

Look back at a generation worth of ports. Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean the end results are going to be optimal.

I have no doubt that they'll be able to get this up and running on those platforms. Whether or not the ports play well is going to depend entirely on how ambitious the original project is.

I'm not a professional developer, of course, but I have made small games on my own and have been working with UE4 for six months now building VR focused projects. The developers of this game certainly know a lot more than I - but I'd imagine, right now, even their knowledge is very limited since the game is so early.

UE4 can run well on low power devices but that doesn't mean those devices could automatically handle a game designed with the engine. Can't really say more until we see what IGA and team can produce. I'd imagine they are focusing on delivering a 60fps experience so they're not going to be able to use too many fancy features if they want to keep that target on Xbox One and PS4.

They're going to stick with UE4 as I'd imagine it would be more difficult to rebuild the game using another foundation. With the way UE4 works, it wouldn't be a straightforward affair (especially with the original developers being Japanese creating a language barrier).

I'm very interested in seeing what they can do, though. These types of ports are interesting.

 

[foxuzamaki]

I don't get where this idea that Bloodstained would benefit so much from being on "high end" hardware other than graphical bells and whistles comes. It's a Castlevania game, it'll have corridors and rooms, enemies, weapons and magic. It won't do anything mind-blowing that can't be done on less powerful hardware other than better graphics, it won't have amazing AI routines, sprawling open worlds or thousands of enemies and that has nothing to do with the fact that there's a Vita and Wii U version.
Some versions will look prettier, others will look worse and that's about it, considering there's a separate team to port it.

That's whY I'm confused, it's a 2.5D castlevania game on a budget of a few million from the person 's own genre that mostly was on the DS and GBA.

 

[DeSolos]

But GAF told me that it is not possible..... :/

Given that the source code is available, and the engine runs on mobile(hell it runs on the Ouya) it's possible to port. However Epic has shown no interest in porting it to the Wii or Vita platforms, so while it can be done, it's the burden of the engine licensee to do the port.

As you can imagine, for companies looking to license a third party engine so they can save time on development, this serves as a significant speed bump that usually deters teams from pursuing it.

 

[IsntChrisL]

Have they ever said why they were using UE4 in the first place?

 

[foxuzamaki]

Have they ever said why they were using UE4 in the first place?

Iga said it's to get the most out of his vision, but really it most likely has to do with cost and how you can basically get it free.

 

[Durante]

One argument I see often in this discussion is "well, it wasn't going to be a graphical powerhouse anyway". This is a logical thing to say, but also completely misses half of the point. A game does not need to be a "graphical powerhouse" to suffer from development with lower-end platforms in mind.

As a simple example, let's say I wanted to create an "open world" 2.5D metroidvania-style platformer for XB1, PS4, and PC. Since I have at least 5 GB of memory available on all these platforms, I could well simply decide to load the entire playable area in memory at all times. This will result in

• No load times throughout the entire game, aside from startup (where I can already begin loading during e.g. the main menu)
• It frees me from the burden of having to implement any kind of background streaming/loading system, which is a non-trivial task to make work well in all cicumstances.
• It gives me the freedom to implement things which would otherwise be difficult, such as cutting to a completely different part of the castle during an in-engine cutscene, without any additional effort.

Of course, when I'm targeting a platform with 512 MB of main memory this design decision is simply no longer available to me.

This is just a simple example of one of the first things that came to my mind. The underlying idea I'm trying to convey is that supporting lower-end platforms does indeed induce development considerations/limitations even if you are far from targeting "AAA" assets and presentation or driving the GPU to 100%.

Have they ever said why they were using UE4 in the first place?

Well, it might be because it's the single best third party engine out there in terms of productivity and performance.

 

[BassForever]

One argument I see often in this discussion is "well, it wasn't going to be a graphical powerhouse anyway". This is a logical thing to say, but also completely misses half of the point. A game does not need to be a "graphical powerhouse" to suffer from development with lower-end platforms in mind.

As a simple example, let's say I wanted to create an "open world" 2.5D metroidvania-style platformer for XB1, PS4, and PC. Since I have at least 5 GB of memory available on all these platforms, I could well simply decide to load the entire playable area in memory at all times. This will result in

• No load times throughout the entire game, aside from startup (where I can already begin loading during e.g. the main menu)
• It frees me from the burden of having to implement any kind of background streaming/loading system, which is a non-trivial task to make work well in all cicumstances.
• It gives me the freedom to implement things which would otherwise be difficult, such as cutting to a completely different part of the castle during an in-engine cutscene, without any additional effort.

Of course, when I'm targeting a platform with 512 MB of main memory this design decision is simply no longer available to me.

This is just a simple example of one of the first things that came to my mind. The underlying idea I'm trying to convey is that supporting lower-end platforms does indeed induce development considerations/limitations even if you are far from targeting "AAA" assets and presentation or driving the GPU to 100%.

Well, it might be because it's the single best third party engine out there in terms of productivity and performance.

Then they'll just have loading screens between rooms/cutscenes on the wiiu/vita ports and make everything load at one on the ps4/xb1/pc version. In the end the vision for the more powerful version is maintained while giving a version to other platforms that is still just as functional but missing a few bells and whistles

 

[Fisty]

Then they'll just have loading screens between rooms/cutscenes on the wiiu/vita ports and make everything load at one on the ps4/xb1/pc version. In the end the vision for the more powerful version is maintained while giving a version to other platforms that is still just as functional but missing a few bells and whistles

It really isnt that easy, but hopefully UE4's console and mobile pipelines will help ease much of the concern. Armature has proven itself when given time and budget (MGS HD Vita) and I think given the lead time they have and depending on Epic's support that Armature can at least turn in competent ports.

 

[Jawmuncher]

Well, I care about the quality of the game. A direct port in the same engine makes platform considerations for Wii U and Vita far more likely to affect the development of the main version. I'm not happy about that.

Look, I'm really sorry that I care more about the game than pushing my favourite platform.

I accepted that would be the case early on. Same thing happened to MN9.

 

[Zubz]

Well, this is going to be interesting! I hope it doesn't suffer from slowdown or anything, but if it runs like the PS4/XB1 versions on the system I own, I'm in.

 

[charlequin]

Even if we assume that everything works near perfectly, the realities of software development are still there. They could achieve more. Even if a different team handles the porting, they still need to work together very closely and it is in Inti Creates best interest to make the porting as easy as possible on Armature.

Why is that, exactly? IntiCreates isn't getting paid for how easily Armature can port things, they're getting paid to make the game IGA wants to direct. To do a better job delivering for their client (and look better to the next people who hire them), they're going to want to do a good job on the project they have.

Really, it's much more normal these days for downports to be handled by external teams after no consideration from the primary team to make it easy on them. Shadows of Mordor for Last-Gen doesn't even have the Nemesis System, the entire selling point of the game in the first place. Lots of major games (Borderlands 2 for Vita, Call of Duty for Wii, etc. etc. etc.) get ported by teams that just have to do their best with a game that isn't well-suited to the target lower-power platform.

Mate, I wouldn't bother. Any argument presented in opposition will be called out as "concern-trolling" because we can't provide concrete evidence for our claims

Funny how that works!

This is just a simple example of one of the first things that came to my mind. The underlying idea I'm trying to convey is that supporting lower-end platforms does indeed induce development considerations/limitations even if you are far from targeting "AAA" assets and presentation or driving the GPU to 100%.

I think the real sticking point here is that when you identify a situation like this, you assume that instead of just developing the primary version and letting Armature figure out what to do with what they get, the team is going to secretly be constantly compromising their design at every opportunity to ensure some kind of ease-of-use for the Vita team, even though the campaign has been absolutely explicit in saying the opposite. A game just being built for the platforms it's built for, and then ported (often badly, or with significant elements missing) by an external team to weaker systems, is extremely normal, but that doesn't seem to even be a factor in these discussions. The result is that a paranoid insistence that the devs are clearly more interested in betraying their own vision than in maybe letting lower-end ports be suboptimal comes off as more motivated by visceral platform animus than any rational consideration of the situation.

 

[Squire]

Not too surprising. IIRC Epic never said it was impossible to make UE4 run on Wii U, just that it wasn't one of their directly supported platforms. The engine is fairly scalable as evidenced by the demos that run on phones and tablets.

Right.

But that's not going to stop some folks from latching on to this like it means they get to be all "I told you so!!" and acting like its going to usher in a new age of UE4 games on the system.

Nothing's really changed and it won't on a grand scale. Someone needed to be willing to do the work and now they are. Funny enough, it's actually not even that, really. It's more like they're obligated to.

 

[CamHostage]

Have they ever said why they were using UE4 in the first place?

Iga said it's to get the most out of his vision, but really it most likely has to do with cost and how you can basically get it free.

Finance is going to have something to do with the choice, no doubt. I brought this up elsewhere, but earlier in the thread/another thread, an experience developer named M3d10n questioned the choice of UE4 over UE3 in the overall project. (Unless I'm understanding his comments wrong, speaking of how UE4 and UE3 do lighting/rendering, there's the difference on a fundamental level that you don't just 'roll back' from or 'switch off'; despite common assumptions that a new engine is "everything from before but better!!", each new engine is its own thing.) IntiCreates must have a plan, bur the specific look they're speaking of (or at least comparing themselves to, given that GG Xrd came up in Kickstarter interviews, although so did Strider 2014 and that's a very different approach) may have meant UE3 could/would be a better choice for what Iga is aiming for... if Epic hadn't gifted the UE4 development suite and made it hard to choose otherwise.

But either way, the panic that it's an Unreal Engine 4 project and thus is "too powerful" for any other platform to even consider just based the engine choice, that seems to be a misunderstanding of what a game engine is. I'm not too worried that Armature is biting off more than it can chew. And just speaking of Vita and Wii U, there's not necessarily anything inherent to those systems anyway where the game would suck in a UE4 port but would have turned out beautifully if it were built on a UE3 base instead.

It's plenty possible that Iga/IntiCreates will use aspects of UE4 that will be a nightmare (if not impossible) to port, but more likely, they're looking at UE4 for its cost and its friendly support and its sturdiness rather than its next-gen feature set. Plus, IntiCreates may well be looking at this project as a calling card for its own future project bids, so who know how deep they really mean to dig into the system, they may simply want a successful UE4 title on their portfolio even if it ends up being on the lowered end of feature implementation.

 

[Muskieratboi]

Best case scenario: Armature ports UE4 to Wii U, and then merges the github fork with main (or at least makes it publically accessible). BOOM, indies can then port their UE4 games to the wii U and everyone wins.

Remember guys: UE4 is (technically) open source. Anyone with an Epic Games account can fork the source now. Lionhead's realtime GI system for Fable Legends is getting merged with main soon, for example.

 

[Codeblue]

What are people expecting from this game? How much time and money do you think they're going to be alloted that they could make something that would be impossible to be outsourced to the Vita?

This is Iga's indie Castlevania revival, not the second coming of Crysis.

Edit: Just saw Durante break it down, and while that does make sense, I gave money to Iga because I trust him, so I believe him when he says he's going to do what he wants on the lead platforms.

 

[OrbitalBeard]

I hope they can pull it off, as I'd love to own this on Wii U. Otherwise, I'll buy the XB1 version.

 

[FunkyDealer]

Awesome, I hope it's a great couple of ports! Wii U and Vita seem like perfect platforms for igavanias.

 

[erpg]

Here's to hoping unreal engine 4 has a better showing on the Vita than 3 did. Ouch.

 

[Clefargle]

Someday we will all look back on this and use
"That's the plan" sarcastically.

 

[SomedayTheFire]

Has nothing to do with fear mongering. This is straight off the Unreal Engine's FAQ subsection of the website:



I don't see Wii U in that list, so I don't know what Armature has planned.

This means that Unreal themselves have created the bespoke pipelines for these platforms. It doesn't mean the engine will only work on these platforms, just that currently the tools aren't created for them. Any company can port the tools and pipeline. It will cost a good bit more for Armature to port the engine but it doesn't mean that much.

 

[CaviarMeths]

One argument I see often in this discussion is "well, it wasn't going to be a graphical powerhouse anyway". This is a logical thing to say, but also completely misses half of the point. A game does not need to be a "graphical powerhouse" to suffer from development with lower-end platforms in mind.

As a simple example, let's say I wanted to create an "open world" 2.5D metroidvania-style platformer for XB1, PS4, and PC. Since I have at least 5 GB of memory available on all these platforms, I could well simply decide to load the entire playable area in memory at all times. This will result in

• No load times throughout the entire game, aside from startup (where I can already begin loading during e.g. the main menu)
• It frees me from the burden of having to implement any kind of background streaming/loading system, which is a non-trivial task to make work well in all cicumstances.
• It gives me the freedom to implement things which would otherwise be difficult, such as cutting to a completely different part of the castle during an in-engine cutscene, without any additional effort.

Of course, when I'm targeting a platform with 512 MB of main memory this design decision is simply no longer available to me.

This is just a simple example of one of the first things that came to my mind. The underlying idea I'm trying to convey is that supporting lower-end platforms does indeed induce development considerations/limitations even if you are far from targeting "AAA" assets and presentation or driving the GPU to 100%.

Is there any particular reason that you're convinced that IGA is going for platform parity, despite all evidence pointing to the contrary?

 

[fernoca]

Keeping an eye out.

The other day I was thinking on how I miss the "old days" when Konami ported TMNT Arcade to NES which not only was fun and playable, but also kinda shocking that it was the arcade game...on the NES.

Back then, publishers ported nearly everything ..to everything. Sometimes it worked, sometimes was really bad, sometimes there were less characters, etc.

Stuff like Street Fighter Alpha 2 and Killer Instinct on SNES. Or stuff completely different like the Marvel Super Heroes action game on SNES instead of the fighting game. Or the chibi versions of Samurai Showdown for the Game Boy.

Even ones like Mortal Kombat II on Game Boy with no blood, no Kintaro, 8 characters and 2 stages only. Wasn't bad, even when you knew it was far from similar to the arcade game.

Games were far from perfect, yet you could see the dedication and intention to get it out.

Now, some act as if it's insulting that this game is coming to Wii U and Vita...when we haven't even seen anything.

Would be great if more stuff was made like this. Granted, it will be too costly, but still nice. Guess the Photoshops and stuff like the threads in here replicating games with PSone visuals will do.

 

[I'm new be nice]

Keeping an eye out.

The other day I was thinking on how I miss the "old days" when Konami ported TMNT Arcade to NES which not only was fun and playable, but also kinda shocking that it was the arcade game...on the NES.

Back then, publishers ported nearly everything ..to everything. Sometimes it worked, sometimes was really bad, sometimes there were less characters, etc.

Stuff like Street Fighter Alpha 2 and Killer Instinct on SNES. Or stuff completely different like the Marvel Super Heroes action game on SNES instead of the fighting game. Or the chibi versions of Samurai Showdown for the Game Boy.

Even ones like Mortal Kombat II on Game Boy with no blood, no Kintaro, 8 characters and 2 stages only. Wasn't bad, even when you knew it was far from similar to the arcade game.

Games were far from perfect, yet you could see the dedication and intention to get it out.

Now, some act as if it's insulting that this game is coming to Wii U and Vita...when we haven't even seen anything.

Would be great if more stuff was made like this. Granted, it will be too costly, but still nice. Guess the Photoshops and stuff like the threads in here replicating games with PSone visuals will do.

This post is awesome and deserves more attention.

 

[kitchenmotors]

You're so dramatic.

Pretty much. Really disappointed that he's acting like this.

 

[Pyramid head]

Of course, when I'm targeting a platform with 512 MB of main memory this design decision is simply no longer available to me.

This is just a simple example of one of the first things that came to my mind. The underlying idea I'm trying to convey is that supporting lower-end platforms does indeed induce development considerations/limitations even if you are far from targeting "AAA" assets and presentation or driving the GPU to 100%.

Well, it might be because it's the single best third party engine out there in terms of productivity and performance.

I thought the Wii U has 1 gig of ram (with another 1 gig allocated to the OS)?

In any case, I don't think you have anything to worry about.

 

[Durante]

I think the real sticking point here is that when you identify a situation like this, you assume that instead of just developing the primary version and letting Armature figure out what to do with what they get, the team is going to secretly be constantly compromising their design at every opportunity to ensure some kind of ease-of-use for the Vita team, even though the campaign has been absolutely explicit in saying the opposite. A game just being built for the platforms it's built for, and then ported (often badly, or with significant elements missing) by an external team to weaker systems, is extremely normal, but that doesn't seem to even be a factor in these discussions. The result is that a paranoid insistence that the devs are clearly more interested in betraying their own vision than in maybe letting lower-end ports be suboptimal comes off as more motivated by visceral platform animus than any rational consideration of the situation.

No, it's motivated by experience with how multiplatform titles turn out. That is, games developed from the outset with a set of platforms in mind, rather than ported after the fact. As a PC gamer, I have a lot of experience with exactly how that affects development decisions.

And admittedly, perhaps a lack of trust in what corporations tell people, especially during a period where they want their money. Sorry about that one, but I don't believe it's "paranoid" at all. I feel the complete trust and "faith" in them that many exhibit is more pathological.

Is there any particular reason that you're convinced that IGA is going for platform parity, despite all evidence pointing to the contrary?

I'm not at all saying that he's going for "parity". I'm saying he will not make fundamental development decisions that make the porting team's job 5 times harder. That would be insane.

I thought the Wii U has 1 gig of ram (with another 1 gig allocated to the OS)?

Vita.

 

[charlequin]

No, it's motivated by experience with how multiplatform titles turn out. That is, games developed from the outset with a set of platforms in mind, rather than ported after the fact.

But... that isn't what we have here? This is the exact same situation as Call of Duty: Black Ops for Wii, or Shadow of Mordor for PS360. The fact that these games had the same release date had no bearing on anything; they're still games that were unambiguously developed for a specific set of higher-spec platforms, then ported in a version that includes whatever they could happen to squeeze in, because the people buying on the low-powered systems would settle for scraps.

I really don't understand what the big incentive is for this team to gimp themselves. Everyone knows going in that Wii U and Vita are ultra-weak compared to the other target platforms; everyone knows that an external team is doing the porting. Nobody is going to be surprised by big graphics downgrades, or long loading times, or pre-rendering cutscenes, or any of the other stuff you do to make a game run on a system it wasn't designed for; people who are excited for a Wii U or Vita version are going to be happy just to get something. There's basically no way this game could have something on the order of the Nemesis system that would be cut on a downport, so it's hard to imagine them running into any serious trouble over whatever cuts they do have to make.

And admittedly, perhaps a lack of trust in what corporations tell people, especially during a period where they want their money. Sorry about that one, but I don't believe it's "paranoid" at all.

The assumption that everyone else is acting out of blind fannish devotion while only you are being truly rational certainly comes off as relatively paranoid.

 

[Csr]

The possibility of what durante speaks of certainly exists, no one except the developers has enough information to know how probable it is. Everyone can make their estimation based on what we know. Arguing further about the subject feels pointless imo.

 

[MaLDo]

But... that isn't what we have here? This is the exact same situation as Call of Duty: Black Ops for Wii, or Shadow of Mordor for PS360. The fact that these games had the same release date had no bearing on anything; they're still games that were unambiguously developed for a specific set of higher-spec platforms, then ported in a version that includes whatever they could happen to squeeze in, because the people buying on the low-powered systems would settle for scraps.

I really don't understand what the big incentive is for this team to gimp themselves. Everyone knows going in that Wii U and Vita are ultra-weak compared to the other target platforms; everyone knows that an external team is doing the porting. Nobody is going to be surprised by big graphics downgrades, or long loading times, or pre-rendering cutscenes, or any of the other stuff you do to make a game run on a system it wasn't designed for; people who are excited for a Wii U or Vita version are going to be happy just to get something. There's basically no way this game could have something on the order of the Nemesis system that would be cut on a downport, so it's hard to imagine them running into any serious trouble over whatever cuts they do have to make.



The assumption that everyone else is acting out of blind fannish devotion while only you are being truly rational certainly comes off as relatively paranoid.

People is happy when new games are not crossgen. They know their reasons.
Moreso, PS3/360 are more powerful than Vita and most AAA devs have more money than IGA. Why are you surprised by Durante facts?

 

[RM8]

Stretch goal: we ditch our original vision of the game in order to get that money from two severely underperforming platforms. That's the part I find hard to believe, personally.

 

[Drilbit777]

That's pretty damn ambitious for them considering Unreal Engine 4 isn't even on Wii U. Hopefully it works out the best for them.

 

[Eila]

Was hoping for a 2d version, but it's too expensive I guess.

 

[sixteen-bit]

Was hoping for a 2d version, but it's too expensive I guess.

True, but we still have our Playstation, GBA, and DS titles to go back to. I'm currently replaying AOS and loving it.